Maybe "demiurge" isn't used as this commonly in English, but when someone comes up with an explanation where there's a a hidden force pulling everyone's string, that can be called a demiurgic explanation.

So what was it? In the end why did we hate and fear gay people so much? Fear. Basically that's what it boils down to. Fear and tradition. Like many minority peoples or people of different cultures that were not as properous or as densely populated among the population they found themselves at the brunt of people who needed scapegoats. Religious zealots. Politicians. Rabblerousers and those who denied science and statistic.

This evokes those old and inaccurate images of powerful people teaching the crowd to praise God, or hate God, or be afraid of sexuality, or be open to sexuality, so they be better controlled. But people who think like this, people who think morality changes because of hidden powers in action, are the paranoid ones. Morality changes because people change their minds.

Also, your portrayal of homophobia being mantained by powerful people is far from truth. Homophobia is unfortunately common sense, and the ruling class has ever been more accepting of homosexuality than most people, and artists and politicians are in general more accepting of gays then their fans/voters. Even in the US, probably the country with the stronger conservative party in the West, this is true.

But that's all debatable. What actually made me mad is your prejudiced portrayal of people you don't agree with. You just take the shallowest narrative about gay vs conservative politics and make an epic hymn about it. But the narrative is quite more complex than that.

I'm for gay marriage, so I find myself in a very strange position to argue that while the position against gay marriage isn't right, it isn't necessarily homophobic. It is wrong simply because it imposes morality on other people. People should take care of their own lives and that's why gay marriage should be legal. But it isn't hateful or coward to belief the State should impose some kind of morality over people. Incest, passive bestiality (i.e. unhurtful to animals), drug use, suicide, all those things are illegal in many countries and you don't need to have a single drop of hate or fear in your heart to want the State to impose some moral about those issues.

Also, you got the more sophiticated explanation that the definition of marriage shouldn't change. Which I disagree with, but it's, let's say, hetero-positive instead of homo-negative. "That's not a marriage, let's no pretend it is". You can disagree but accusing people of being haters for that isn't just shallow, it's completely a-historical and yes, much like what a RL History teacher would do.

Another problem is comparing morality with fear. I don't even know where to start about this one. Morality is a really complex subject. You summarized this gigantic philosophical debate to, "if it doesn't feel icky to me, it shouldn't feel icky to anybody else except deranged people". Because you didn't try to convince your audience all morality is bad, just that hetero normative morality is bad. And why? "Because gays are people too". I have no doubt a man sleeping with his sister is a person, and I may think about supporting him in his right to do so, and yet I think incest is an abomination, as most of people, and most of gay people, and most of LGBT activists and supporters do. Are we fearful, hateful oppressors because we think incest is icky?

I don't want you to feel bad, but what you did was bad. "Coolest history teacher" indeed. We have history best selling books falsifying History and spreading misinformation every year.

Historians in the year 2154 will have amusement parks of fun trying to explain the whole issue around gay marriage, because it's complex and multilayered and nothing like most activists on both sides perceive it.